Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Meat Eater, Vegetarian or Vegan?
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »People do realise that the sheer number of humans and clearing of land for agricultural needs is the main threat to the environment right? Being a vegan is ethical in the animal cruelty category (arguably) only for domestic animals raised purely for food, unless you eat a lot of wild meat but that's a whole new argument (I'm pro hunting if its done correctly and the beast is eaten and not a trophy). However it doesn't reduce the habitat destruction, fragmentation or overconsumption in wild ecosystems. The "ethics" argument baffles me - domestic animals have the right not to die quickly and humanely for food but wild animals can die slowly from starvation/habitat loss so we can grow more soy? I agree the practices could be better (I hate caged meat and feed lots) but the push for those practices was driven by population and consumption... Mainly in developed nations.
Omnivore over here. We raise chickens for eggs at home and Australia has pretty good meat - even kangaroo is delicious.
The domestic impact on the earth, even if we put the ethical piece aside is still pretty staggering. I usually just focus on my own plate, but not when people put my own ethical choice in quotes and throw shade at it.....
Is this the same for all meats, or just hamburger? There are meats other than beef after all. There are bad farming practices for plants and meat.
It is similar for mass produced meat, no matter the type.
And I would like to see your stats on comparing the environmental and waste statistics on farming plants and meat, since you think they are similar. I have never heard that. The impact on producing meat has always been shown to be worse in those aspects. So.....
Not sure if you are confusing me with someone else, but I never said they were similar.
So .... what? I could eat meat daily without ever eating commercially farmed meat if I wanted.
You'd still have to grow the food to feed the animals that you are going to eat as food. It would not be as bad as factory farming and I don't think I have or know of studies of the impact of local or family based farming.
No, I'm talking about eating wild animals. Hunting, fishing, that sort of thing.
I wasn't aware you only ate food you caught or captured yourself. Interesting. I don't know many people in this day and age that is sustainable for.
??? Look up the word "could"
My misunderstanding. I assumed most people couldn't do that in this day and age, but didn't want to assume and the belittlement is hurtful. Take care. Enjoy your day.
I assume most people could do that in this day and age, but choose not to. As do we. Probably only about 1/2 of our meat is from hunting (venison and fish), we raise chickens and the rest is store bought. We could easily eat only wild meat but we choose not to because we like things that can't be found in the wild where we live like seafood and pork.
My point is that poor farming practices is not something that everyone who eats meat supports.
I'd find the amount of people who eat meat who do not support farming practices in some way to be so small it is non-existent. Even your anecdotal story which is probably more anti-farming than the average meat eater shows that. *shrugs*
Still it is mixing topics. There are environmentally sustainable sources of meat.
Not really. But if I come across someone who does only source their meat from wild sources, I'll remember this. Until then, it's basically just lip service of what one could but does not do.
Yes, really. The fact that it can be done means that once ethics are removed the only reason not to do it is that one does not want to invest the time and money to do it.
No, not really. Ethics removed and the environmental impact are two completely different things. Not sure why you would lump them both together. Both may be motivating factors for how someone chooses to fill their plate.
The fact that someone does not want to invest the time and money may be a reason, but it's not necessarily the only reason. Not even in the slightest.
When it can be done and ethics are removed, what other reason is there?
In terms of the vegan philosophy, ethics cannot be removed when it comes to consuming animal flesh.
The vegan philosophy is not the subject at hand.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »People do realise that the sheer number of humans and clearing of land for agricultural needs is the main threat to the environment right? Being a vegan is ethical in the animal cruelty category (arguably) only for domestic animals raised purely for food, unless you eat a lot of wild meat but that's a whole new argument (I'm pro hunting if its done correctly and the beast is eaten and not a trophy). However it doesn't reduce the habitat destruction, fragmentation or overconsumption in wild ecosystems. The "ethics" argument baffles me - domestic animals have the right not to die quickly and humanely for food but wild animals can die slowly from starvation/habitat loss so we can grow more soy? I agree the practices could be better (I hate caged meat and feed lots) but the push for those practices was driven by population and consumption... Mainly in developed nations.
Omnivore over here. We raise chickens for eggs at home and Australia has pretty good meat - even kangaroo is delicious.
The domestic impact on the earth, even if we put the ethical piece aside is still pretty staggering. I usually just focus on my own plate, but not when people put my own ethical choice in quotes and throw shade at it.....
Is this the same for all meats, or just hamburger? There are meats other than beef after all. There are bad farming practices for plants and meat.
It is similar for mass produced meat, no matter the type.
And I would like to see your stats on comparing the environmental and waste statistics on farming plants and meat, since you think they are similar. I have never heard that. The impact on producing meat has always been shown to be worse in those aspects. So.....
Not sure if you are confusing me with someone else, but I never said they were similar.
So .... what? I could eat meat daily without ever eating commercially farmed meat if I wanted.
You'd still have to grow the food to feed the animals that you are going to eat as food. It would not be as bad as factory farming and I don't think I have or know of studies of the impact of local or family based farming.
No, I'm talking about eating wild animals. Hunting, fishing, that sort of thing.
I wasn't aware you only ate food you caught or captured yourself. Interesting. I don't know many people in this day and age that is sustainable for.
??? Look up the word "could"
My misunderstanding. I assumed most people couldn't do that in this day and age, but didn't want to assume and the belittlement is hurtful. Take care. Enjoy your day.
I assume most people could do that in this day and age, but choose not to. As do we. Probably only about 1/2 of our meat is from hunting (venison and fish), we raise chickens and the rest is store bought. We could easily eat only wild meat but we choose not to because we like things that can't be found in the wild where we live like seafood and pork.
My point is that poor farming practices is not something that everyone who eats meat supports.
I'd find the amount of people who eat meat who do not support farming practices in some way to be so small it is non-existent. Even your anecdotal story which is probably more anti-farming than the average meat eater shows that. *shrugs*
Still it is mixing topics. There are environmentally sustainable sources of meat.
Not really. But if I come across someone who does only source their meat from wild sources, I'll remember this. Until then, it's basically just lip service of what one could but does not do.
Yes, really. The fact that it can be done means that once ethics are removed the only reason not to do it is that one does not want to invest the time and money to do it.
No, not really. Ethics removed and the environmental impact are two completely different things. Not sure why you would lump them both together. Both may be motivating factors for how someone chooses to fill their plate.
The fact that someone does not want to invest the time and money may be a reason, but it's not necessarily the only reason. Not even in the slightest.
When it can be done and ethics are removed, what other reason is there?
In terms of the vegan philosophy, ethics cannot be removed when it comes to consuming animal flesh.
The vegan philosophy is not the subject at hand.
If I am vegetarian or vegan, the ethical reasons that cannot be removed sure are a reason then.
And we're back to mixing subjects. Or dodging the question. Not really sure which.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »People do realise that the sheer number of humans and clearing of land for agricultural needs is the main threat to the environment right? Being a vegan is ethical in the animal cruelty category (arguably) only for domestic animals raised purely for food, unless you eat a lot of wild meat but that's a whole new argument (I'm pro hunting if its done correctly and the beast is eaten and not a trophy). However it doesn't reduce the habitat destruction, fragmentation or overconsumption in wild ecosystems. The "ethics" argument baffles me - domestic animals have the right not to die quickly and humanely for food but wild animals can die slowly from starvation/habitat loss so we can grow more soy? I agree the practices could be better (I hate caged meat and feed lots) but the push for those practices was driven by population and consumption... Mainly in developed nations.
Omnivore over here. We raise chickens for eggs at home and Australia has pretty good meat - even kangaroo is delicious.
The domestic impact on the earth, even if we put the ethical piece aside is still pretty staggering. I usually just focus on my own plate, but not when people put my own ethical choice in quotes and throw shade at it.....
Is this the same for all meats, or just hamburger? There are meats other than beef after all. There are bad farming practices for plants and meat.
It is similar for mass produced meat, no matter the type.
And I would like to see your stats on comparing the environmental and waste statistics on farming plants and meat, since you think they are similar. I have never heard that. The impact on producing meat has always been shown to be worse in those aspects. So.....
Not sure if you are confusing me with someone else, but I never said they were similar.
So .... what? I could eat meat daily without ever eating commercially farmed meat if I wanted.
You'd still have to grow the food to feed the animals that you are going to eat as food. It would not be as bad as factory farming and I don't think I have or know of studies of the impact of local or family based farming.
No, I'm talking about eating wild animals. Hunting, fishing, that sort of thing.
I wasn't aware you only ate food you caught or captured yourself. Interesting. I don't know many people in this day and age that is sustainable for.
??? Look up the word "could"
My misunderstanding. I assumed most people couldn't do that in this day and age, but didn't want to assume and the belittlement is hurtful. Take care. Enjoy your day.
I assume most people could do that in this day and age, but choose not to. As do we. Probably only about 1/2 of our meat is from hunting (venison and fish), we raise chickens and the rest is store bought. We could easily eat only wild meat but we choose not to because we like things that can't be found in the wild where we live like seafood and pork.
My point is that poor farming practices is not something that everyone who eats meat supports.
I'd find the amount of people who eat meat who do not support farming practices in some way to be so small it is non-existent. Even your anecdotal story which is probably more anti-farming than the average meat eater shows that. *shrugs*
Still it is mixing topics. There are environmentally sustainable sources of meat.
Not really. But if I come across someone who does only source their meat from wild sources, I'll remember this. Until then, it's basically just lip service of what one could but does not do.
Yes, really. The fact that it can be done means that once ethics are removed the only reason not to do it is that one does not want to invest the time and money to do it.
No, not really. Ethics removed and the environmental impact are two completely different things. Not sure why you would lump them both together. Both may be motivating factors for how someone chooses to fill their plate.
The fact that someone does not want to invest the time and money may be a reason, but it's not necessarily the only reason. Not even in the slightest.
When it can be done and ethics are removed, what other reason is there?
In terms of the vegan philosophy, ethics cannot be removed when it comes to consuming animal flesh.
The vegan philosophy is not the subject at hand.
If I am vegetarian or vegan, the ethical reasons that cannot be removed sure are a reason then.
And we're back to mixing subjects. Or dodging the question. Not really sure which.
What specific question do you believe I am dodging?
This one: When it can be done and ethics are removed, what other reason is there?0 -
Isn't the subject at hand ( you know, the topic of this thread) which way of eating each person adheres to and why?
It seems like the ethics are part of the topic at hand and most of @Need2Exerc1se 's argument here is actually off topic. ... but that's just my point of view.
I also agree with @shell1005 's perspective that for any Vegan or Vegetarian, the ethics will never be removed from this choice... So what are we arguing about again?
*edited to correct spelling0 -
BecomingBane wrote: »Isn't the subject at hand ( you know, the topic of this thread) which way of eating each person adheres to and why?
It seems like the ethics are part of the topic at hand and most of @Need2Exerc1se 's argument here is actually off topic. ... but that's just my point of view.
I also agree with @shell1005 's perspective that for any Vegan or Vegetarian, the ethics will never be removed from this choice... So what are we arguing about again?
*edited to correct spelling
The OP topic was which diet was healthier.
And for the record it was @shell1005 that first mentioned removing ethics (page 22, 3rd post from top).0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »Isn't the subject at hand ( you know, the topic of this thread) which way of eating each person adheres to and why?
It seems like the ethics are part of the topic at hand and most of @Need2Exerc1se 's argument here is actually off topic. ... but that's just my point of view.
I also agree with @shell1005 's perspective that for any Vegan or Vegetarian, the ethics will never be removed from this choice... So what are we arguing about again?
*edited to correct spelling
The OP topic was which diet was healthier.
And for the record it was @shell1005 that first mentioned removing ethics (page 22, 3rd post from top).
And it's been proven that each WoE is equally healthy... so again.. what are we arguing about again?
Ethics aside, each way of eating has been proven to be equally healthy.
Ethics included, it's a personal choice.
I didn't see anyone trying to convince anyone that their WoE was correct, but I do see you trying to prove they are incorrect. Not really sure why, though.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »People do realise that the sheer number of humans and clearing of land for agricultural needs is the main threat to the environment right? Being a vegan is ethical in the animal cruelty category (arguably) only for domestic animals raised purely for food, unless you eat a lot of wild meat but that's a whole new argument (I'm pro hunting if its done correctly and the beast is eaten and not a trophy). However it doesn't reduce the habitat destruction, fragmentation or overconsumption in wild ecosystems. The "ethics" argument baffles me - domestic animals have the right not to die quickly and humanely for food but wild animals can die slowly from starvation/habitat loss so we can grow more soy? I agree the practices could be better (I hate caged meat and feed lots) but the push for those practices was driven by population and consumption... Mainly in developed nations.
Omnivore over here. We raise chickens for eggs at home and Australia has pretty good meat - even kangaroo is delicious.
The domestic impact on the earth, even if we put the ethical piece aside is still pretty staggering. I usually just focus on my own plate, but not when people put my own ethical choice in quotes and throw shade at it.....
Is this the same for all meats, or just hamburger? There are meats other than beef after all. There are bad farming practices for plants and meat.
It is similar for mass produced meat, no matter the type.
And I would like to see your stats on comparing the environmental and waste statistics on farming plants and meat, since you think they are similar. I have never heard that. The impact on producing meat has always been shown to be worse in those aspects. So.....
Not sure if you are confusing me with someone else, but I never said they were similar.
So .... what? I could eat meat daily without ever eating commercially farmed meat if I wanted.
You'd still have to grow the food to feed the animals that you are going to eat as food. It would not be as bad as factory farming and I don't think I have or know of studies of the impact of local or family based farming.
No, I'm talking about eating wild animals. Hunting, fishing, that sort of thing.
I wasn't aware you only ate food you caught or captured yourself. Interesting. I don't know many people in this day and age that is sustainable for.
??? Look up the word "could"
My misunderstanding. I assumed most people couldn't do that in this day and age, but didn't want to assume and the belittlement is hurtful. Take care. Enjoy your day.
I assume most people could do that in this day and age, but choose not to. As do we. Probably only about 1/2 of our meat is from hunting (venison and fish), we raise chickens and the rest is store bought. We could easily eat only wild meat but we choose not to because we like things that can't be found in the wild where we live like seafood and pork.
My point is that poor farming practices is not something that everyone who eats meat supports.
I'd find the amount of people who eat meat who do not support farming practices in some way to be so small it is non-existent. Even your anecdotal story which is probably more anti-farming than the average meat eater shows that. *shrugs*
Still it is mixing topics. There are environmentally sustainable sources of meat.
Not really. But if I come across someone who does only source their meat from wild sources, I'll remember this. Until then, it's basically just lip service of what one could but does not do.
Yes, really. The fact that it can be done means that once ethics are removed the only reason not to do it is that one does not want to invest the time and money to do it.
No, not really. Ethics removed and the environmental impact are two completely different things. Not sure why you would lump them both together. Both may be motivating factors for how someone chooses to fill their plate.
The fact that someone does not want to invest the time and money may be a reason, but it's not necessarily the only reason. Not even in the slightest.
When it can be done and ethics are removed, what other reason is there?
In terms of the vegan philosophy, ethics cannot be removed when it comes to consuming animal flesh.
The vegan philosophy is not the subject at hand.
If I am vegetarian or vegan, the ethical reasons that cannot be removed sure are a reason then.
And we're back to mixing subjects. Or dodging the question. Not really sure which.
What specific question do you believe I am dodging?
This one: When it can be done and ethics are removed, what other reason is there?
To not eat meat? Or why someone would not hunt their own food?
To not eat meat. A couple right off the top of my head. Cultural. Religious. Personal preference.
To not hunt my own food. Skill is also a pretty big reason. Family size. Also religious. Personal preference and even the availability for the meat that you want to eat, but do not have access to kill.
And personally for me, ethics cannot be removed, so it's just a hypothetical conversation in my world.
Right, the reason not to do it that we don't want to. I said that way up the thread and yet you kept arguing against it. But, it would seem we agree.0 -
BecomingBane wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »Isn't the subject at hand ( you know, the topic of this thread) which way of eating each person adheres to and why?
It seems like the ethics are part of the topic at hand and most of @Need2Exerc1se 's argument here is actually off topic. ... but that's just my point of view.
I also agree with @shell1005 's perspective that for any Vegan or Vegetarian, the ethics will never be removed from this choice... So what are we arguing about again?
*edited to correct spelling
The OP topic was which diet was healthier.
And for the record it was @shell1005 that first mentioned removing ethics (page 22, 3rd post from top).
And it's been proven that each WoE is equally healthy... so again.. what are we arguing about again?
Ethics aside, each way of eating has been proven to be equally healthy.
Ethics included, it's a personal choice.
I didn't see anyone trying to convince anyone that their WoE was correct, but I do see you trying to prove they are incorrect. Not really sure why, though.
Whoa! What? When did I try to convince anyone that anything was correct or incorrect. You are reading things into my posts that aren't there. None of my posts are about what is correct.
The issue was someone suggesting that eating meat = supporting poor farming practices. My position is that's not necessarily true.
We are arguing other stuff because the health thing was pretty much universally agreed on page 1.0 -
I'd make the argument (joke intended) that you are reading into the posts of others equally as strongly. But don't really care to argue with you or anyone for that matter.
I'd agree with you that eating meat does not necessarily equate to poor farming practice, but that if looked at on a larger scale, farming practices can be poor (and often are) whether they are meat related or not.
I'd also agree that most commercial meat and/or farming practices, whether interrelated or not are poor and that it takes a smaller scale to manage better practices because of many reasons not limited to overall resource usage, soil degradation, etc.
I only got involved because they exchange between the two of you was growing hostile on both sides, whether each of you will agree to that or not, and this thread has been an interesting one to follow and relatively peaceful for its entirety.1 -
BecomingBane wrote: »I'd make the argument (joke intended) that you are reading into the posts of others equally as strongly. But don't really care to argue with you or anyone for that matter.
I'd agree with you that eating meat does not necessarily equate to poor farming practice, but that if looked at on a larger scale, farming practices can be poor (and often are) whether they are meat related or not.
I'd also agree that most commercial meat and/or farming practices, whether interrelated or not are poor and that it takes a smaller scale to manage better practices because of many reasons not limited to overall resource usage, soil degradation, etc.
I only got involved because they exchange between the two of you was growing hostile on both sides, whether each of you will agree to that or not, and this thread has been an interesting one to follow and relatively peaceful for its entirety.
I agree with everything you just said, except I was not trying to be hostile. I suppose I need to work on my forum skills because I get that too often. It's just the way I talk. I do have a tendency to argue my point to death I guess, but I harbor no ill will to those that disagree. When people keep responding I assume they want to continue discussing (aka arguing).
If I offended anyone I am truly sorry. :flowerforyou:3 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »People do realise that the sheer number of humans and clearing of land for agricultural needs is the main threat to the environment right? Being a vegan is ethical in the animal cruelty category (arguably) only for domestic animals raised purely for food, unless you eat a lot of wild meat but that's a whole new argument (I'm pro hunting if its done correctly and the beast is eaten and not a trophy). However it doesn't reduce the habitat destruction, fragmentation or overconsumption in wild ecosystems. The "ethics" argument baffles me - domestic animals have the right not to die quickly and humanely for food but wild animals can die slowly from starvation/habitat loss so we can grow more soy? I agree the practices could be better (I hate caged meat and feed lots) but the push for those practices was driven by population and consumption... Mainly in developed nations.
Omnivore over here. We raise chickens for eggs at home and Australia has pretty good meat - even kangaroo is delicious.
The domestic impact on the earth, even if we put the ethical piece aside is still pretty staggering. I usually just focus on my own plate, but not when people put my own ethical choice in quotes and throw shade at it.....
Is this the same for all meats, or just hamburger? There are meats other than beef after all. There are bad farming practices for plants and meat.
It is similar for mass produced meat, no matter the type.
Not so fast
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/new-study-says-beef-10x-more-damaging-environment-chicken-pork-or-dairy-foods
@shell1005, I'm wondering what your take is on this article? (Thinking this response to your post got missed?)
0 -
BecomingBane wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »Isn't the subject at hand ( you know, the topic of this thread) which way of eating each person adheres to and why?
It seems like the ethics are part of the topic at hand and most of @Need2Exerc1se 's argument here is actually off topic. ... but that's just my point of view.
I also agree with @shell1005 's perspective that for any Vegan or Vegetarian, the ethics will never be removed from this choice... So what are we arguing about again?
*edited to correct spelling
The OP topic was which diet was healthier.
And for the record it was @shell1005 that first mentioned removing ethics (page 22, 3rd post from top).
And it's been proven that each WoE is equally healthy... so again.. what are we arguing about again?
Ethics aside, each way of eating has been proven to be equally healthy.
Ethics included, it's a personal choice.
I didn't see anyone trying to convince anyone that their WoE was correct, but I do see you trying to prove they are incorrect. Not really sure why, though.
If you go back someone tried to argue that eating meat was better than vegetarianism/veganism because of the environment, which is silly. Shell (I think) responded that in fact modern farming practices used to sustain the amount of meat we consume are more destructive of the environment (which is so, from what I've read).
Not sure how it got to the later exchange, maybe some misreading or misinterpretation?1 -
forwardmoving wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »People do realise that the sheer number of humans and clearing of land for agricultural needs is the main threat to the environment right? Being a vegan is ethical in the animal cruelty category (arguably) only for domestic animals raised purely for food, unless you eat a lot of wild meat but that's a whole new argument (I'm pro hunting if its done correctly and the beast is eaten and not a trophy). However it doesn't reduce the habitat destruction, fragmentation or overconsumption in wild ecosystems. The "ethics" argument baffles me - domestic animals have the right not to die quickly and humanely for food but wild animals can die slowly from starvation/habitat loss so we can grow more soy? I agree the practices could be better (I hate caged meat and feed lots) but the push for those practices was driven by population and consumption... Mainly in developed nations.
Omnivore over here. We raise chickens for eggs at home and Australia has pretty good meat - even kangaroo is delicious.
The domestic impact on the earth, even if we put the ethical piece aside is still pretty staggering. I usually just focus on my own plate, but not when people put my own ethical choice in quotes and throw shade at it.....
Is this the same for all meats, or just hamburger? There are meats other than beef after all. There are bad farming practices for plants and meat.
It is similar for mass produced meat, no matter the type.
Not so fast
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/new-study-says-beef-10x-more-damaging-environment-chicken-pork-or-dairy-foods
@shell1005, I'm wondering what your take is on this article? (Thinking this response to your post got missed?)
Wow, worse than automobiles. I knew beef used a lot of resources but, assuming that is true, that's an alarming comparison. Makes me glad I don't like beef much.0 -
Seems to have been both from what I can tell.
Ethical questions and concerns tend to put people on edge, in my experience, and any time it reaches that point tempers can easily run high. As @Need2Exerc1se pointed out, they have a tendency to "assume they want to continue discussing" and in a situation where the other person has their ethical dander up it can easily get out of hand (in the very minor way that this could be referred to as such). I fall prey to that all of the time in real life conversations with some people. Some people or topics just push my buttons in a face to face conversation.
I just, for my own selfish reasons, wanted to keep this thread calm because it's one of the few places on MFP where vegans, vegetarians, omnis, and "carnivores" have not completely degenerated into name calling and ridiculousness.
*Edited for Grammar0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »forwardmoving wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »People do realise that the sheer number of humans and clearing of land for agricultural needs is the main threat to the environment right? Being a vegan is ethical in the animal cruelty category (arguably) only for domestic animals raised purely for food, unless you eat a lot of wild meat but that's a whole new argument (I'm pro hunting if its done correctly and the beast is eaten and not a trophy). However it doesn't reduce the habitat destruction, fragmentation or overconsumption in wild ecosystems. The "ethics" argument baffles me - domestic animals have the right not to die quickly and humanely for food but wild animals can die slowly from starvation/habitat loss so we can grow more soy? I agree the practices could be better (I hate caged meat and feed lots) but the push for those practices was driven by population and consumption... Mainly in developed nations.
Omnivore over here. We raise chickens for eggs at home and Australia has pretty good meat - even kangaroo is delicious.
The domestic impact on the earth, even if we put the ethical piece aside is still pretty staggering. I usually just focus on my own plate, but not when people put my own ethical choice in quotes and throw shade at it.....
Is this the same for all meats, or just hamburger? There are meats other than beef after all. There are bad farming practices for plants and meat.
It is similar for mass produced meat, no matter the type.
Not so fast
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/new-study-says-beef-10x-more-damaging-environment-chicken-pork-or-dairy-foods
@shell1005, I'm wondering what your take is on this article? (Thinking this response to your post got missed?)
Wow, worse than automobiles. I knew beef used a lot of resources but, assuming that is true, that's an alarming comparison. Makes me glad I don't like beef much.
I tend to think that article is not entirely true. They are claiming that grass fed beef is worse for the environment than grain fed. That simply doesn't make sense. Sure grain fed cattle use a lot of resources - mostly due to the mono crop farming used to produce their feed. Then again, the corn or wheat or soy used in cattle feed is not suitable for human consumption. And much of the land it is grown on may not be suitable for growing anything other than substandard grains. Grass fed cattle can be raised in places that are not suitable for farming, and only need a minimum of silage for winter months in very cold climates. I haven't yet looked at the while study tho, just the opinion piece linked. But on the surface something doesn't seem right...
1 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »forwardmoving wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »People do realise that the sheer number of humans and clearing of land for agricultural needs is the main threat to the environment right? Being a vegan is ethical in the animal cruelty category (arguably) only for domestic animals raised purely for food, unless you eat a lot of wild meat but that's a whole new argument (I'm pro hunting if its done correctly and the beast is eaten and not a trophy). However it doesn't reduce the habitat destruction, fragmentation or overconsumption in wild ecosystems. The "ethics" argument baffles me - domestic animals have the right not to die quickly and humanely for food but wild animals can die slowly from starvation/habitat loss so we can grow more soy? I agree the practices could be better (I hate caged meat and feed lots) but the push for those practices was driven by population and consumption... Mainly in developed nations.
Omnivore over here. We raise chickens for eggs at home and Australia has pretty good meat - even kangaroo is delicious.
The domestic impact on the earth, even if we put the ethical piece aside is still pretty staggering. I usually just focus on my own plate, but not when people put my own ethical choice in quotes and throw shade at it.....
Is this the same for all meats, or just hamburger? There are meats other than beef after all. There are bad farming practices for plants and meat.
It is similar for mass produced meat, no matter the type.
Not so fast
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/new-study-says-beef-10x-more-damaging-environment-chicken-pork-or-dairy-foods
@shell1005, I'm wondering what your take is on this article? (Thinking this response to your post got missed?)
Wow, worse than automobiles. I knew beef used a lot of resources but, assuming that is true, that's an alarming comparison. Makes me glad I don't like beef much.
I tend to think that article is not entirely true. They are claiming that grass fed beef is worse for the environment than grain fed. That simply doesn't make sense. Sure grain fed cattle use a lot of resources - mostly due to the mono crop farming used to produce their feed. Then again, the corn or wheat or soy used in cattle feed is not suitable for human consumption. And much of the land it is grown on may not be suitable for growing anything other than substandard grains. Grass fed cattle can be raised in places that are not suitable for farming, and only need a minimum of silage for winter months in very cold climates. I haven't yet looked at the while study tho, just the opinion piece linked. But on the surface something doesn't seem right...
I doubt the claim regarding automobiles is true. The primary point of the article,however, is that beef takes more resources to produce than other meats, which contradicts the point made earlier and to which I responded with the article. That point though should be obvious to anyone who has spent time on a farm.0 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »forwardmoving wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »People do realise that the sheer number of humans and clearing of land for agricultural needs is the main threat to the environment right? Being a vegan is ethical in the animal cruelty category (arguably) only for domestic animals raised purely for food, unless you eat a lot of wild meat but that's a whole new argument (I'm pro hunting if its done correctly and the beast is eaten and not a trophy). However it doesn't reduce the habitat destruction, fragmentation or overconsumption in wild ecosystems. The "ethics" argument baffles me - domestic animals have the right not to die quickly and humanely for food but wild animals can die slowly from starvation/habitat loss so we can grow more soy? I agree the practices could be better (I hate caged meat and feed lots) but the push for those practices was driven by population and consumption... Mainly in developed nations.
Omnivore over here. We raise chickens for eggs at home and Australia has pretty good meat - even kangaroo is delicious.
The domestic impact on the earth, even if we put the ethical piece aside is still pretty staggering. I usually just focus on my own plate, but not when people put my own ethical choice in quotes and throw shade at it.....
Is this the same for all meats, or just hamburger? There are meats other than beef after all. There are bad farming practices for plants and meat.
It is similar for mass produced meat, no matter the type.
Not so fast
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/new-study-says-beef-10x-more-damaging-environment-chicken-pork-or-dairy-foods
@shell1005, I'm wondering what your take is on this article? (Thinking this response to your post got missed?)
Wow, worse than automobiles. I knew beef used a lot of resources but, assuming that is true, that's an alarming comparison. Makes me glad I don't like beef much.
I tend to think that article is not entirely true. They are claiming that grass fed beef is worse for the environment than grain fed. That simply doesn't make sense. Sure grain fed cattle use a lot of resources - mostly due to the mono crop farming used to produce their feed. Then again, the corn or wheat or soy used in cattle feed is not suitable for human consumption. And much of the land it is grown on may not be suitable for growing anything other than substandard grains. Grass fed cattle can be raised in places that are not suitable for farming, and only need a minimum of silage for winter months in very cold climates. I haven't yet looked at the while study tho, just the opinion piece linked. But on the surface something doesn't seem right...
It may not be correct. And while you raise some good points, what may be done wouldn't really apply to a study of this nature. What is done would matter. I imagine most land used for pasture could easily be used for farming, though that's just a guess.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions